The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-12-06
I. S. SUPREME COURT
Important Decisions Rendered,
So-Called Kansas Prohibition Gases
Acted Upon by Justice Harlan.
The State Prohibitory Laws Shown
To Be Entirely Constitutional.
That They Did Not Interfere with
Liquor Traffic, Eut Modified 1t.
The Property of Brewers Was Not Taken
nom Them, But a'NuIsance Was
Abated-The Virginia Habeas
Corpus Cases.

WASHINGTON, Dee. "a very impor
tant decision, and one likely to be far
reaching in its consequences, was rendered
in the supreme court to lay, in the so-called
Kansas prohibition ca OF NIuglcr against
the State of Kansas AM the State of Kan
sas against Zeibold ana others. The judg-
mcnt OF the court was pronounced in II
long and elaborate opinion by Mr. Justice
Harlan, who said "The general question
in each case is whether the prohibition
statutes OF Kansas are IN conflict with that
clause Of the fourteenth amendment, which
provides that no State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridgc the
privileges or immunities Of the citizens Of
the United States, nor shall any State de-
prive any person Of life liberty or properly
without due process OF lw'
THAT legislation by State prohibiting
the manufacture within her limits Of in
toxicating liquors, TO b. rcsold or bartercd
for general use us beverage, does not
necessarily infringe an, right privilege or
immunity secured 10y ne constitution OF
the United States is male clear by the de-
cisions Of this court, rendered before and
since the adoption otthe fourteenth amend
mcnt. II il, howovrr contcndcd that
the state may prohibit The manufacture OF
Intoxicating liquors for sale OF barter within
her limits for general Use ~ beverage; no
convention or Legislature has the right
under our form Of government TO prohibit
any citizen from manufacturing for his own
use or Tor export or storage any article Of
food or drink not endangcring or affecting
the rights of others The argument
made in support OF the first branch
of this proposition, briefly stated. is: That
in the implied compac,' between the State
aud the citizen, certain rights are reserved
| 10y the latter which are guaranteed by the
constitutional provisions for the protection
Of lie, liberty aud property against de-
priyation without due process ol law, aud
/ with which the STATE cannot interfere:
that among those rights Is that OF manu-
| featuring Tor ones own lsc either food or
drink; that while, according 20 the doc
trincs OF the commune, the state may con-
! troll the tastes, appt:iisa, habilr, drcas,
food and drink of the citizen, our system
Of government, based upon the individual
| ity aud intelligence OF the people, does not
claim 90 control him except ~ 10 his con
duct TO others, leaving him the sole judge
/ rs Ia all that only affects himself
1T will BE- observed that the proposition
/ and the argument made IN support ol II
equally conccdc that the right 10 manulac-
| turr drink for ones personal u.s., Is subject
/ 10 the condition that such manufacture
does not ondangcr or effect the rights 0l
others. II such manufacture does prcju.
dicially affect the rights and Interests Of
/ the community, Il follows from the very
premises stated by couusclthat society has
/ the power a. protect itself by legislation
/ against the injurious consequences 81 that
/ business. Aswas said in Mum W. Illinois,
! lOi u. =, i2i) while power does not exist
| with the whole people Ia control rights
| that arr purely and exclusively private,
! the government NAV require each citiz'n
10 10 conduct himself, and ~ Ia use his
| own property Us not unnecessarily io in
! jur another.
"But by whom or ly what authority
/ il II 10 be- determined whether the manu-
iac,urc Of particular articles Of drink,
/ either for general use ar for the personal
Use Of the maker. will iniuiously Affect
the public? Power 20 Diet .rminc such
questions, 20 as 10 bud al. must exist
| somewhere. else socicy Will pc NJ the
mercy VI the few Who, regarding only
their own nppctitcs or passions, may b.
willing 10 impcril the peace and security
OF the many, provided only they are per
mitled Ia 10 as they please. Under Uur
system that power Il lodged with the
legislative branches q. the government.
Il belongs 10 that department 10 exert
what are known as the police powers 81
the State. II must dogunine primarily
what measures are appropriate Or useful
i1r the protection ol tht public morals, thc
public health or the public safety.
at does not al nll follow from these
principles TINT every statute enacted
usicnsibly for the promotion Of these ends
il 10 be- accepted ~ legitimate cXcriion
Of The police powory Oi the State. Ihcp
an OF necessity limits beyond which leg
islaion cannot rghHHlly go. As the
courts must obey the constitution mlhoI
than the law-making department. Of gov
eminent, II must upl iis responsibility
determine whether in amy particular ci~
these limits have been itysd. The courii
are not bound by mcr' i0rms, nor arr they
to bo mislcd by mere prclcn-cs They
are nj liberty, indeed ARE under % solemn
duty, 10 look ni the substance
oi things whenever they enter upol
the inquiry whether iho legislature ht
transcribed the Limits of ~ authority. ~
therefore, n statute punoring to hay'
been enacted 10 protect the public hcalth
the public morals, or ilc public sucly
, has no real or substantial relation 10 iho-
objects, or is palp1bc Invasion OF righu
secured by the Fundamental law, d Is th
/ duty u the courts 10 20 adIudg', ah'
thereby give effect 10 The constitution
Keeping ia view these pflnclplcs, M HlN
erning the relations win each other ol VA
/ judicial aud Legislative departments a
/. governments IL IL dI.i .ult 10 perceive an
ground for the judiciary 10 declare TIA
1 prohibition by kau.s Of Tie. mnnui'cl
4 urc or sale within hg limits Of int1Niral
!. Ing liquors for general usn there .is n''
4 erigc, Is not fairly adlp'cd To ne cnl q
= protecting the uwrinily against W.
\ evils which conivf ly insult ifJm tie ca
q ces-iyc use Of ardcu. plrA
There rs here 10 .illiciuon lof holI
Ing that the State. under the gulso her,l
+ Of police regulation s aiming TO dcpHN
Il the citizen ~ his constitutional rights io
n ~ Rnnot shut out u. i"w theiacli WIN
IS the knowledge of alI ihgi Tic pun" h"'iii I
" the public morals aid TIE pubUc Hi'l
r may bc cndangcrrd b, the general ,'sc {
1. Intoxicating drinhs Nor can We ighoI
the fact, eslaJlshcl by siaiis'iB access